in the r and & of ribék; but I have little doubt that ribanik-dahishnih = ‘devotion of the soul’ was the original. In Y.53, 7 we have sdtinédo (same element of ‘ progress’) = Zarazdistd; the idea of ribdk had become firmly implanted in the ancient exegesis. Verezeidydi (?) was divided verezei (cp. varezi.ndo (MSS.), Y. 45, 9) and dydz, hence the mischievous yehabiinam which spoils the smoothness of the rendering; but mark well that the trir. saw a first sg. pres.( =imper.-fut.) in the infin. for he could only have rendered sg. pres. after seeing infin. for imper. Haug has prarohinapraropita = lasst - + hervor- wachsen (2). Ropita (or °¢@) would seem part. of the causative conjugation. But a 3*4 pers. seems needed; see Pahl. and Gatha; I therefore had thought of two corrections. If yuydm is left (but see khshmd, and didainhé(é)), °prdropita would need mending to praropayata, imper., or °ropayitd = ‘elevator’. Haug
read pishmdcha for vishamdimcha against the other MSS.; and possibly mis- reading Sansk. p for v.
12. I agree alternatively with the Pahl. (here followed by Spiegel and Geldner) which introduces jasd frdkhshnené(é) as the thing said, mraos: ‘Weil du mir befohlen hast: ,komme zum Reinen--“, but see v.10. Ad(t) ta moi dais ashem hyad(t) mé zaozaomi, with no break; see also frdkhshnenem in no citation in v. 14. Frdakhshnené(é) to khshna@ (jnd) with Haug. As to the agreeable rendering asrustd = ‘(not) in my disobedience’, i. e. ‘not without my obeying’, it needs more language. Then as to the rendering: ‘Arise before my Sraosha will appear’, why ‘before’? The meaning cannot be: ‘Thou did’st (?) not call me in my disobedience; ‘arise’, before. my obedience, or my obedient one, came, or will come, to me’. A fault would also lie in referring asrustd to the speaker, with the following Syaoshé in view, meaning ‘I was obedient at first, obedience came to me before thou (?) didst (?) declare’. Such a cumbrous and twisted diction is excessively improbable, and the imperative pairyaoghzhd makes it impossible. The meaning is that obedient followers stood ready before he was ordered to march. The infin. for imper. presents no difficulty, as it exists in many languages: ‘Do not declare to me unheard-of things, to go forth to-- - (= ‘go thou forth’. ‘You told me to go’ = ‘you told me, ‘go’’). <Asrustd (with Spiegel and Geldner loc. of asrust’) is more naturally acc. pl. nt., another word for agustd, Y. 31, 1. It may well mean ‘not gladly, or obediently, heard’. Pairyaoghzhd, 284 sg. imper. sa aor. of aog = vach; some would render ‘Thou did’st call’(?). For uzireidydi, externally only like irddhydi, cp. for sense, Vedic ar, or trate, trayddhydi; ‘arise’, or, ‘go forth’, possibly ‘arouse’. Sraoshd indicates the missing subject in v. 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ash? (here hardly per- sonified) means ‘with a blessing as a recompense’. Mazdrayd is now again read by some, and rendered ‘wealthy’; better as ‘glorious’; cp. ddathrdva, or divided mazd rayd ‘with great splendour’. ‘Bribing the chiefs through the wealthy Ashi’ is not indicated, nor could maz@ ray@ mean ‘with much money’. dndibyd (so with most MSS., not in the dual) is, together with the absence of the Fire, adverse to Haug’s brilliant comparison with the arani; one scholar prefers ‘with the associated ones’, see on Y. 31, 1, 2. Compare the dsaydo of Y. 31, 2. In Y. 31, 8; 51, 9 it is khshniitem ‘satis- faction’, ‘settling of the dispute? to the two sides, khshniitem being used, in spite of the evil character of one of the disputing parties, on account of the holy character of the other. So here ash#s, the sacred blessings as reward, are used because one of the réna was the holy party in the struggle. See also the striking y@o ddo ashi dregvdité(é) ashdunaé(é)cha; cp. also Y. 31, 12 where Ar(a)maiti questions the two spirits, one of them the mithah-
roger 2 tO
TT a ee a ee
des Willens’. Geldner: ‘als er.» « erschien, um die ziele meines wiinsches 2u erfahren’. All the other emphatic infinitives with expression of desire (see v.9, 3) refer to the human subject. Arethd... kdmahyé are, 1 think, far more than ‘the objects of my desire’. (Ayad(t) méi, ete. is mere recur- ring formula, and is separated from vdizhdydi. Aretha ig sanctified and definite, quasi technical, and so defined in Y. 33, 8 (see also véczhdim there) yasnem, M. ++. staomyd, vachdo.+ - Ameret? --~ H°. Arethé does not express desire only, but the holy offices. Véczhddm and voiehdydi = ‘know’, or ‘reveal’. The Divine Being did not need to ‘know’ these, that know- ledge was the tem (kdmem (Spiegel), yanem (Justi) prayed-for. Dar sta ité, so Haug detineat itione (hint of Ner. from Pahl.). Geld. ddareS¢ ite in das einzu- gehen niemand euch abnothigen kann; to dar, cp. dérest (2)%, I, with others, had taken (for lack of better) dérStaité(é) as denom. If Spiegel’s dar(e)saité(é) could be verified, I would prefer it, or derest, root aor., derestd, root cl., cp. dhrish- dnt. Yéem vido, etc. looks very unnatural as ‘into which to go no one euch abnothigen kann’. ‘Which no one can audaciously extort from (?) you’ seems far more probable; cp. for partial analogy RV. V. 85, 6 imdm tt ni kavitamasya miyim mahim devdsya ndkir of dadharsha. Vairydo = vairyaydo shortened for metre, as so often; cp. vedhdim for vedhisam, surtdhds for suridhasas. mahiim for mahintam; cp. mahind, prathind, etc. with loss of m. Cp. the omitted ‘a’s to be restored in reading the dat. infin. in-ane; cp. Whitney, Sansk. gram. p. 143. See also yiind for yivdnd. This strophe has no ex- clusive reference to the future world; the composer is praying for the suc- cess of the holy cause in the perfected State. (#* Haug’s daresh (?) = detinere (?) is followed as to meaning by those who cp. dérest).
Pahl. The gloss, as usual, forces an unnecessarily erroneous syntax, kémaké should of course be taken as a gen. after kamahyd, if by no other means, then by supplying the izafat. Moed, also a gloss, is nearly equally mischievous. So also as to pavan tani 7 pasind. The roots present are however correctly indicated except that in dérstd(?) ite, or darst(?)ité(2)(?), here the trlr. not unnaturally sees dares(?) = ‘to see’. S#oi$ was most certainly not supposed to be either a part. or a third sg. conj.; yekavémindd may be either. Perhaps stéi§ was regarded as a gen. infin. for a dat., and that as an imper.; ‘it is to (= let it) be from desire’, Dropping the almost certainly later glosses we have (c): ‘Be he, or be thou, an announcer of the decree of, or as to, the desire, that do ye grant tome.-. ., (e) According to desire let it happen, also as belonging to it, Thy kingdom is declared’. As ordinary Pahl. we might render: ‘Grant me the desire of that announcer of decrees - . .’,
14. Vaé(¢)demné. Vid, in its two senses, was not yet firmly distin- guished. Vaé(¢)demné may well equal ‘knowing’, ‘intelligent’; but it seems
wise’ seems to translate the °dd of °dando! As ordinary Pahl. read c; ‘that which Khshatraver ordered for Thee with the help of righteousness’.
15. Us(k)yé (or ws(k)ydi, so Spiegel and Geldner) adverbial instr. or dat. infin. = ‘with understanding’, or ‘for understanding’. Tusnd@ with mattis a variant for damaitis; cp. Indian téshnim, adv., fem. of a téshna, ep. tush and tuc. Or tusnd-maitis might be taken in the concrete = ‘The contented one’; cp. zarazdditis. Sraosha, or the divine messenger, is alluded to Vt. 13, 109; Vahité is more idiomatic as instr. with ushyd, or it may be acc. pl. Paowrus; pourds has been regarded by some asa pl. of p(a)owru = puri; but it would have to be taken as equalling p(a)ourins, which in case of necessity might well be allowed. Notice the awkwardness of ‘let not a man men evil ingratiate’. It is either = primarius, or = ‘to an exceeding degree’; see RV. VIII, 63,1. Sd pirvyo mahindm venth krdétubhir dnaje. One writer reports; ‘let no one please the infidel hordes. Then they make all the righteous recreant’. I do not think that ‘many’ paourds would be apt to be empha- sized. The two throngs (cp. @saydo) were in armed conflict. But one leader, or chief, might be too conciliating in his policy, better read the sg.; see S. B. KE. XXXI, p. 106. Line e means ‘they have considered all Thy foes as holy (in their adulation)’; or ‘thus (obeying what I say) they render all Thy foes converted’, or, finally; ‘they render all the saints recreant’ (not probable). One writer suggested véspeng migreng as neut.: ‘Thus they do all evil things to thy saints’ (later retracted). Dakhshak, rendering only the idea of dakhskad(t), does not prove that the Pahl. trlr. was ignorant as to the term. °ad(#). Tusnd probably stood divided in the MS. before the earlier trirs. as ¢ws.nd, or else with a minute (or superstitious) industry he rendered each syllable. Vakhshinishnd shows accidental error, the Gatha
being read by an earlier trlr. in the Pahl. character; 49904459 gp would be expressed by #94441), letters which also spell vakhsht @. Line (e) is im-
portant, and may be correct. Aside from the Gathad one might render c; ‘a sign with intelligence is a mental enlargement of the energetic man’, but ¢@shid if = ‘energetic’, is a blunder. Chaitanyena J%., J4. J.* = pavan hish = us(k)yd. (In all occurrences before this read J.* for J.4) Samunmilatu again associates ‘giving light’ with ‘increasing’; see vakhshinishné. Haug’s satkaryd for satkartd is not desirable. Sdénandd is difficult (sa (sam(?)) + dnanda); we should expect °ena (see the Pahl.) or °an. Balishthataran(? curious redup.).
16. To be more concrete, we may suppose the spéenista mainyu to be here alluded to, but ep. Y. 33, 9. As to yasté(¢) or yésté (yest?) I now hesitate somewhat before deciding too positively for the sense adorat (Haug).
S = chchh, and yesté would equal yachchhte, but no unthematic form of yachchh
(from yam) occurs in Sansk. This of course is not decisive by any means, for the Avesta in some respects dominates the Veda, and if s positively = chchh here, this occurrence might be cited in critical comparative grammars. But the reading yasté(é) (yas té(@)) must be considered. Geldner (most Dhilo- sophically, as often) proposing an alternative to the reading in his valuable edition, boldly follows Spiegel (Comm.) and De Harlez, and refers this ‘who is thy - 4 most bountiful’ to mainytim K. Z. XXX(X), 8.334. Z. erwahit fiir sich jeden heiligsten geist von dir, 0 A. M. But this is hazardous. These generalizing ex- pressions in the Gathds apply to human subjects, cp. ahmdi, yahmai kahmdi chid(f), Y.43,1; Z.’s representative character is here noticed, ‘Z. and whoever is most bountiful (holy (?) also loves and chooses’. I was formerly far too wide and general in applying ég - - khshathré:. The expression more probably designates the sacred political system. ‘The realm especially blest with the sacred favour of the Sun’ is: the meaning; cp. the rdyd, ashis, the bathroyd (bathrovd) etc. Ashim is ‘sacred reward’, ‘blessing as recompense’. Notice the obvious character of the strophe. The leading important com- poser may well have constructed many such closing verses as in Y. 28, 11; Y..30; 11; Y. 31, 22; Y. 32, 16: Y..35; 14) Vasa ey 0 ee Y: 46,19; Y. 48, 12; Y. 49, 11; Y. 50, 11; /Y; Sf) 22= ¥. 58,79) They came homogeneous in style and tone with many strophes not final in their cha- racter. Yet if any verses are to be attributed to leading successors, such final ones irresistibly suggest themselves. This strophe (among many others) is of the utmost value to prove that the Pahl. trlrs. were capable of intel: ligent freedom. That the trlr. supposed hvd, etc. to express literally the first pers., it is no longer necessary to deny. He intelligently saw that Z was represented by the Gathic composer as speaking concerning himself. Verenté(é) as a sg. points to.a stem veren which is here first recognized by the Pahl. trlr. in désham (for doshéd). Pavan aittkih = ‘in reality’ is ex= pressive, but we may have here att + 7k + 7h in the sense ‘in continuance’ = ‘for ever’, which is so probable where a#¢ occurs as translating words implying duration of time; see the remarks on p. 413, and this in spite of Ner.’s sattayd and the Parsi-pers. héd(?) dakyd. That careless freedom, of accidental confusion, is the reason why hydd(t)) = att(?), is proved by hyad(t)) = héomandd in vy. 15. I do not doubt that aoj - hémandthdatar was originally adj-hémand changed to qualify désham. In view of the Gatha and? with glosses aside, read; ‘in it, that which has the Sun’s manifestation (khéirshéd-pédakth (adj.)) which is the kingdom, it (that is, Righteousness) is his through the perfect-minded-one - - -’. As ordinary Pahl. read 8: ‘by him is [the reward] of the Sun’s manifestation given’.
Y. XLIV.